Join the Physicians Committee in New York to
celebrate a monumental victory for animals and the future of medical research!
David Cabrera and Alexander Gray will host a victory party in their contemporary
Chelsea art gallery, and you won't want to miss this festive night of fun, art,
and amazing vegan nibbles. Kick off your holiday season by joining Neal Barnard,
M.D., in New York for this very special celebration!
Alexander Gray Associates art gallery
510 West 26 St.
New York
510 West 26 St.
New York
I remember back in May 2010, when we were strategizing on how to save 202 chimpanzees. Those chimpanzees at the Alamogordo Primate Facility in New Mexico had been unofficially retired from invasive experimentation for nearly a decade. But to save money, the National Institutes of Health was going to start moving them to an active research facility in San Antonio.
In fact, the NIH did move some animals to Texas. Working with other organizations, we stalled the move of the remaining animals to the research facility. We worked with then-New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and actor Gene Hackman, a New Mexico resident, to generate massive media coverage. And eventually a small group of U.S. senators heard the message and called on NIH to convene a study.
When a committee was formed at the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2011 to examine the scientific necessity of chimpanzee research, we felt that the makeup of the group was biased. We urged IOM to make a change, and it did, replacing the chair of the committee and other members.
I was honored to be one of only three non-NIH experts to testify before the committee at its initial public meeting, and I believe our words hit home. Ultimately, the IOM committee announced that it could find no area of biomedical research for which chimpanzees were necessary.
Following the IOM report, NIH announced in June 2013—after 18 months of deliberations and thousands of public comments submitted by us and our allies—that it would retire more than 300 of its chimpanzees, but would leave 50 as a "reserve" colony for possible future experiments. We, of course, called for all the chimpanzees to be freed.
In June 2015, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service announced that it would finally classify all chimpanzees, including those in laboratories, as endangered. This would make it very difficult to use the animals in invasive experiments. We had submitted comments to the Fish & Wildlife Service to encourage this decision.
Then came this week's announcement by Dr. Collins and NIH that eliminates all federally funded experimentation on chimpanzees and sends them all to retirement. This is a major milestone in our mission to promote ethical and scientifically sound research.
This is a wonderful time for these long-suffering animals, and it paves the way for progress for those who are still left behind in research laboratories. Thank you for everything you've done to make this victory possible.
Ban Cruel Cosmetics Testing on Animals.
Petition: Click Here To Sign!
Goal: End the cruel and inhumane use of animals in cosmetics testing.
The United States is the number one animal testing country in the world. Thousands of mice, guinea pigs, rats, and rabbits are poisoned, burned, and blinded every year in these tests. Pain relief is rarely provided and the animals are killed at the conclusion of the test, usually by asphyxiation, neck breaking, or decapitation.
Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. There are viable alternatives available to test for skin sensitization, eye irritation, oral toxicity, and inhalation toxicity among others. The animals are subjected to invasive procedures and substance applications on shaved or irritated skin.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines cosmetics as “articles intended to be applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance without affecting the body’s structure or functions.” The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not require animal testing to prove cosmetic safety.
Testing on animals is used for new, untested ingredients to determine safety. However, cosmetic companies could choose to use ingredients that have a history of being safe. They could use existing non-animal tests or develop new non-animal testing. Computer modeling can deliver human-specific results in days, rather than the months or years it takes for animal test results. Non-animal testing is also generally more cost effective. Animals used in cosmetic testing are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act.
Even the FDA believes that companies should consider the use of scientifically valid alternative methods prior to the use of animals. They support the development and use of alternative testing as well as adherence to humane methods of testing. Cosmetic testing on animals should be abolished due to the fact that animals are fundamentally different from humans. Our bodies can respond differently when exposed to the same chemicals. Basically, animal testing is expensive and imprecise.
Europe, Israel, and India have already banned cosmetic testing on animals. The United States should do the same. By signing this petition, you will urge the FDA to ban the use of cosmetics testing on animals. Sign the petition and save an animal from being burned, poisoned, blinded, or killed.
PETITION LETTER:
Dear Commissioner Ostroff,
Europe, India, and Israel have banned cosmetics testing on animals, yet the United States remains the number one animal testing country in the world. Lab animals are burned, poisoned, and blinded without the pain relief, all for the benefits of beauty.
Animal testing is cruel and inhumane, especially when there exists viable alternatives such as computer modeling and using ingredients already deemed safe. Computer modeling has also proven more efficient and reliable than testing on non-human species.
Animals tested in labs are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act and are often treated with callous disregard. We, the undersigned, urge you to ban the use of animal testing for all cosmetics. Please treat our animals humanely and stop the torture inflicted on them in labs.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Photo Credit: Simay85
ALTERNATIVES TO TESTING
While the federal validation of non-animal alternative test methods continues to be a slow and frustrating process, new laws and public concerns about safety, have pushed the need for better and cheaper alternative methods.
In February 2008, three federal agencies, the National Human Genome Research Institute, the National Toxicology Program, and the Environmental Protection Agency, announced the establishment of a five-year plan to investigate new technologies that would allow for the rapid testing of large numbers of chemicals while also providing results more applicable to humans. The agencies predict that success of these high throughput mechanisms would result in a “reduction or replacement of animals in regulatory testing.” Never before has science, public policy, and consumer demand all been pushing toward the same goal of more effective testing methods without the use of animals.
ACCEPTED ALTERNATIVES
In the U.S., the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) validates alternative methods, and recommends them for use to the scientific and federal regulators. They cooperate with other international bodies to evaluate the accuracy and applicability of new alternative methods. The following are some of the validated alternatives approved by ICCVAM. Click here to view a complete list of accepted alternatives in use worldwide.
Acute Toxicity In Vitro Starting Procedure, 3T3 Cells
Acute Toxicity In Vitro Starting Procedure, NHK Cells
Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (BCOP) Test Method
Isolated Chicken Eye (ICE) Test Method
Corrositex®
EPISKINTM
EpiDermTM
Rat Skin Transcutaneous Electrical Resistance (TER) Assay
Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA)
Up-and-Down Procedure (UDP)
Ames Test
In vitro Pyrogenicity
RESEARCH ALTERNATIVES
Many areas of biomedical research focus on the study of human-specific diseases and medical concerns. Induced animal models are rarely scientifically relevant to these studies, die to species-specific differences in anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, pharmacokinetics, and toxic responses.
Use of alternative methods, especially incorporating human cells and tissues, avoids such confounding variables.
A SUCCESS STORY
A specific example of a basic research alternative method, and one that potentially has saved up to one million animals, is the in vitro production of monoclonal antibodies (MAbs), which are used in nearly every field of biomedical research and critical areas of clinical practice.
The widely-used ascites method of producing MAbs involves injecting cells into rodent abdominal cavities. It is extremely painful. AAVS filed a petition with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1997 requesting that the agency prohibit its researchers from using the ascites method to produce MAbs.
This petition paired with a scientific workshop sponsored by AAVS affiliate, the Alternatives Research & Development Foundation (ARDF), that illustrated international support for in vitro production of MAbs. As a result, the NIH changed its policy to state that its researchers, and those who receive funding from NIH, must use in vitro alternatives as the default method for MAb production.
ALTERNATIVES USED IN THE US
- I-MAb Gas Permeable Tissue Culture Bags are used to produce monoclonal antibodies for research diagnostic and clinical purposes. Developed by the ARDF, could replace up to one million mice a year.
- National Library of Medicine Visible Human Project utilized actual human cadaver cross-sections, CAT scans, and computer programs to develop new surgical techniques and research perspective.
- Organotypic cultures of human brain slices are used to study neurobiochemistry, neurophysiology, and drug efficacy.
- Short, direct non-invasive magnetic pulses allow precise stimulation of brain cells/regions in human volunteers for neurosciences.
- Use of mathematical models and computer simulations in physiology, cardiovascular, pharmacology, and neurosciences (e.g., neural networks).
- Use of non-invasive functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) to study neuroanatomy and neurophysiology in human patients and volunteers.
- Use of three-dimensional human cell cultures to study drug penetration and characteristics of the blood-brain barrier.
- Use of echocardiography, color-coded dopler imaging and abdominal sonography as non-invasive methods for cardiovascular research in human patients and volunteers.
- Use of normal and pathological human cell and tissue cultures to identify disease processes and treatments.
- Use of three-dimensional bioengineered human skin cultures to study effects of burns and ultraviolet exposure.
DISSECTION ALTERNATIVES
Dissection isn’t necessary.
Students can develop their understanding of anatomy, their manual and cognitive skills, and their confidence using physical and virtual models, videos, books, and activity sets.
In fact, the American Medical Association does not recommend dissection as part of curriculum for medical school education. Many of the most prestigious medical schools such as Harvard, Yale, and Stanford no longer use live animals to teach future doctors. Instead, they use modern technology and human cadavers, which are the most applicable way to learn human anatomy.
In addition, many veterinary schools such as Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine and Western Health Sciences University College of Veterinary Medicine have found ways to incorporate compassionate and respectful ways to obtain cadavers for anatomy lessons and teach surgical skills without terminating animals’ lives. For example, they have developed Educational Memorial Programs (EMPs) in their hospitals in which clients can donate their deceased companion animal from whom students will learn.
Animalearn is AAVS’s education department. Through outreach, on-site presentations, and its lending system, The Science Bank, Animalearn provides free, effective humane education alternatives to educators, students, and institutions.
Learn more about humane education alternatives, dissection choice, and what you can do to help animals while you learn or teach, please visit Animalearn.org.
Students can develop their understanding of anatomy, their manual and cognitive skills, and their confidence using physical and virtual models, videos, books, and activity sets.
In fact, the American Medical Association does not recommend dissection as part of curriculum for medical school education. Many of the most prestigious medical schools such as Harvard, Yale, and Stanford no longer use live animals to teach future doctors. Instead, they use modern technology and human cadavers, which are the most applicable way to learn human anatomy.
In addition, many veterinary schools such as Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine and Western Health Sciences University College of Veterinary Medicine have found ways to incorporate compassionate and respectful ways to obtain cadavers for anatomy lessons and teach surgical skills without terminating animals’ lives. For example, they have developed Educational Memorial Programs (EMPs) in their hospitals in which clients can donate their deceased companion animal from whom students will learn.
Animalearn is AAVS’s education department. Through outreach, on-site presentations, and its lending system, The Science Bank, Animalearn provides free, effective humane education alternatives to educators, students, and institutions.
Learn more about humane education alternatives, dissection choice, and what you can do to help animals while you learn or teach, please visit Animalearn.org.
